The NFL's best and worst offensive arsenals?

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13

  • Makes sense to me.

    We have three proven commodities, only one of which would be considered elite.

    Russ
    Carson
    Lockett

    Everything else is mediocre to unknown.
    McGruff
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 5254
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:14 am
    Location: Elma, WA


  • I believe we will end up with production that exceeds talent, because the scheme is internally consistent and symbiotic.

    But in terms of proven talent on offense, we arent good.
    McGruff
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 5254
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:14 am
    Location: Elma, WA


  • For better or worse, 95% of these articles are driven by FF . . . Where do our guys rank relative to the league?
    McGruff
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 5254
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:14 am
    Location: Elma, WA


  • McGruff wrote:Makes sense to me.

    We have three proven commodities, only one of which would be considered elite.

    Russ
    Carson
    Lockett

    Everything else is mediocre to unknown.


    I agree with this.

    Although we were in the higher rankings of ppg last year, we also benefitted from a league leading turnover ratio.

    Losing ADB hurts. A lot.
    acer1240
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1367
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Sandpoint , Idaho


  • I looked it up, and these rankings are far different from last years results regarding regular season statistics. We were 18 in total offense last year, which is around the middle of the pack and what I expect this year. I don't even begin to understand how the Giants are suddenly going to go into the top 8 offensive teams when they lost OBJ:

    http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats? ... 447263-n=1
    aawolf
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 616
    Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 8:04 am


  • When he had the Hawks at #28 last year, then saw their performance throughout 2018 coupled with offense stats at the end of the year, it's clear he has no idea how the Hawks offense functions.

    Plus, the author has already biased the stats toward WRs, and Russ has no shiny, flashy toys there. He just makes every one of them work in the system.
    Ad Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2240
    Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 9:25 am


  • peachesenregalia wrote:He's not necessarily wrong. Way too many unknowns on offense aside from the running game. Given how most stattos give disproportionate weight to the passing game, I can see why he arrived at this conclusion. Losing Baldwin is huge.


    Go back to the Shack. You don't know anything about football.
    Zebulon Dak
    * The Producer *
     
    Posts: 17035
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:57 pm
    Location: King In The North





  • This should not be a surprise, I mean our best Wr last year was Tyler and yet he is at best a 2 and more likely a 3 on most good offensive teams. Yes Carson played well but that was 1 year, the year before he missed time with injuries. Anyone who is not biased has always known Wilson has not had a great supporting cast, I mean the supposed new great thing Mahomes has the 1st best amount of offensive talent around him last year and 2nd this year. That's one of the reasons Wilson gets a lot of props around the league he does so much with so little compared to other top QBs. I mean even if you only think he is a top 10 QB you have to go up 12 spots to find the next arguable top QB. Most of the top 10 QBs are way higher, meaning they have way more talent around them.

    Lets look at the following

    Mahomes 2nd
    Brady 9th
    Brees 7th
    Rathesburger 15
    Rodgers 19rd
    Luck 12th
    Wilson 29th

    Oh and last year our offensive arsenal was 28th. This shows how little talent we have on offense and jus thow good Wilson is.
    John63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1172
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:56 pm


  • Give Russ some time, he'll make them all look like all stars.... you could have Julio, Brown, and Beckham, and it wouldn't mean anything, if you don't have line protection...
    hawker84
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4611
    Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:22 pm
    Location: Tri Cities, WA


  • Oh ESPN, automatic round file.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 28141
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • So, with an injured ADB who missed many games and was never 100% we were the #6 points team last year, and with somebody else in his place we're suddenly in the bottom 5 of O in the whole league?
    :34853_doh: :34853_doh: :177692: :177692: :177692: :2thumbs:
    GeekHawk
    US Navy ET Nuc
     
    Posts: 7022
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:29 pm
    Location: Orting WA, Great Northwet


  • McGruff wrote:Makes sense to me.

    We have three proven commodities, only one of which would be considered elite.

    Russ
    Carson
    Lockett

    Everything else is mediocre to unknown.


    29th----29th??, OMG!!, they're out of their damned skulls, and so is everyone who swallowed that line of crap.
    Everyone had the Seahawks sucking hind teat last season, and wound up looking like morons for stating such.
    TWENTY NINTH!!!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOL at some of y'all for going along with that.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6903
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:48 pm


  • chris98251 wrote:Oh ESPN, automatic round file.

    ^ This Guy Gets It ^
    :2thumbs:
    I'd have thought that most in here would have too :229031_shrug:
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6903
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:48 pm


  • scutterhawk wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:Oh ESPN, automatic round file.

    ^ This Guy Gets It ^
    :2thumbs:
    I'd have thought that most in here would have too :229031_shrug:

    It's the offseason...
    sc85sis
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 7050
    Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 2:40 am
    Location: Southern CA


  • It's not driven by reality. its driven by madden geeks and fantasy nerds.
    McGruff
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 5254
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:14 am
    Location: Elma, WA


  • scutterhawk wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:Oh ESPN, automatic round file.

    ^ This Guy Gets It ^
    :2thumbs:
    I'd have thought that most in here would have too :229031_shrug:

    Yep, just before coming to these forums today I deleted my ESPN bookmark from my browser.

    I did a month or so of just going to their main page and searching for "Seahawk" and they either had nothing for days at a time or just 1 maybe 2 crap articles and then it was back to every other team in the league for multiple articles. They clearly hate the Seahawks.
    Seahawk
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 176
    Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2015 11:57 am


  • I'd say just by having Russell as our QB, an elite level QB that has never missed a snap in his entire career AUTOMATICALLY puts the Hawks offense at least in the top 15.

    I get it, no Doug and many question marks at the TE and WR position might not instill a lot of confidence if you're putting a list like this together. But anything lower than 12-15 with our nasty run game, Carson and Russell is laughable.
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 15498
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:10 am


  • peachesenregalia wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:I'd say just by having Russell as our QB, an elite level QB that has never missed a snap in his entire career AUTOMATICALLY puts the Hawks offense at least in the top 15.

    I get it, no Doug and many question marks at the TE and WR position might not instill a lot of confidence if you're putting a list like this together. But anything lower than 12-15 with our nasty run game, Carson and Russell is laughable.

    False.


    Only QB to not miss a snap last year I meant.

    But thanks for contributing to the conversation, you and Seymour should hang out.
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 15498
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:10 am


  • Wow, racist as hell Sgt. Largent. Even for me who normally likes that type of humor.
    Last edited by pehawk on Fri Jul 12, 2019 11:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
    pehawk
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 14881
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:08 pm


  • pehawk wrote:Wow, racist as hell Sgt. Largent. Even for me who normally likes that type of humor.



    Oh, nevermind, I see you edited it.
    pehawk
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 14881
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:08 pm


  • 29TH ???..They will eat those words . They are going by how conservative the offense was and how wide open the rest of the league is leaning as far as offenses go . I will take your criticisms and say that the Hawks will keep 5 or maybe 6 receivers and Carroll turns his offensive coaches loose . They have the running game when they want it or need it . It's time to be alittle more unpredictable . I know I'm alone on this ; but why not ? :0190l:
    xray
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1067
    Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:29 am
    Location: AZ


  • Upon further review, the article removes QB and OL from their rankings.

    Considering those two positions are (oddly) among our strongest, a low ranking makes sense.

    And makes the article dumb and irrelevant.
    McGruff
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 5254
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:14 am
    Location: Elma, WA


  • hawker84 wrote:Give Russ some time, he'll make them all look like all stars.... you could have Julio, Brown, and Beckham, and it wouldn't mean anything, if you don't have line protection...


    I'm definitely in the "WRs aren't actually the important part of a passing game." I think the OL and QB are what makes a passing game. WRs are becoming like RBs. You can build a good arsenal with low draft picks and no flashy names.
    HawkGA
    NET Hall Of Famer
     
    Posts: 106497
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:29 pm


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:I'd say just by having Russell as our QB, an elite level QB that has never missed a snap in his entire career AUTOMATICALLY puts the Hawks offense at least in the top 15.

    I get it, no Doug and many question marks at the TE and WR position might not instill a lot of confidence if you're putting a list like this together. But anything lower than 12-15 with our nasty run game, Carson and Russell is laughable.


    I believe this does not include the QB it is basically the supporting cast around the QB
    Last edited by John63 on Fri Jul 12, 2019 11:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    John63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1172
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:56 pm


  • John63 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:I'd say just by having Russell as our QB, an elite level QB that has never missed a snap in his entire career AUTOMATICALLY puts the Hawks offense at least in the top 15.

    I get it, no Doug and many question marks at the TE and WR position might not instill a lot of confidence if you're putting a list like this together. But anything lower than 12-15 with our nasty run game, Carson and Russell is laughable.


    I believe this doe snto onclude the QB it is basically the supporting cast around the QB


    Then by omitting pertinent data, it's an incomplete evaluation, and as Chris stated, it belongs in the circular file under blather.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6903
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:48 pm


  • HawkGA wrote:
    hawker84 wrote:Give Russ some time, he'll make them all look like all stars.... you could have Julio, Brown, and Beckham, and it wouldn't mean anything, if you don't have line protection...


    I'm definitely in the "WRs aren't actually the important part of a passing game." I think the OL and QB are what makes a passing game. WRs are becoming like RBs. You can build a good arsenal with low draft picks and no flashy names.

    Hmm, so Drafting DK , Jennings, & Ursua to take up the slack left by Baldwins injury and retirement isn't really necessary to the Offensive attack?...What am I missing? :34853_tinfoil:
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6903
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:48 pm


  • scutterhawk wrote:
    HawkGA wrote:
    hawker84 wrote:Give Russ some time, he'll make them all look like all stars.... you could have Julio, Brown, and Beckham, and it wouldn't mean anything, if you don't have line protection...


    I'm definitely in the "WRs aren't actually the important part of a passing game." I think the OL and QB are what makes a passing game. WRs are becoming like RBs. You can build a good arsenal with low draft picks and no flashy names.

    Hmm, so Drafting DK , Jennings, & Ursua to take up the slack left by Baldwins injury and retirement isn't really necessary to the Offensive attack?...What am I missing? :34853_tinfoil:


    I took that more to mean it's better to have rookie and mid level vets than invest big time money at the position.
    McGruff
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 5254
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:14 am
    Location: Elma, WA


  • Yep, I'm certainly stoked for DK. But DK doesn't mean squat if the QB sucks and the OL is a sieve.
    HawkGA
    NET Hall Of Famer
     
    Posts: 106497
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:29 pm


  • scutterhawk wrote:
    John63 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:I'd say just by having Russell as our QB, an elite level QB that has never missed a snap in his entire career AUTOMATICALLY puts the Hawks offense at least in the top 15.

    I get it, no Doug and many question marks at the TE and WR position might not instill a lot of confidence if you're putting a list like this together. But anything lower than 12-15 with our nasty run game, Carson and Russell is laughable.


    I believe this doe snto onclude the QB it is basically the supporting cast around the QB


    Then by omitting pertinent data, it's an incomplete evaluation, and as Chris stated, it belongs in the circular file under blather.


    No, because that point is the talent surrounding the QB, so if it is about that why would you include the QB? You would not. Now I understand some of you need to find any way you can to down play anything that does not go with what ever narrative you want. However, the reality is we do not have the same talent around our QB that other top QBs have.
    John63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1172
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:56 pm


  • scutterhawk wrote:
    HawkGA wrote:
    hawker84 wrote:Give Russ some time, he'll make them all look like all stars.... you could have Julio, Brown, and Beckham, and it wouldn't mean anything, if you don't have line protection...


    I'm definitely in the "WRs aren't actually the important part of a passing game." I think the OL and QB are what makes a passing game. WRs are becoming like RBs. You can build a good arsenal with low draft picks and no flashy names.

    Hmm, so Drafting DK , Jennings, & Ursua to take up the slack left by Baldwins injury and retirement isn't really necessary to the Offensive attack?...What am I missing? :34853_tinfoil:


    You're not missing anything . They drafted that way to give Wilson more weapons through the air . I see Wilson with close to 4,000 yards this season .
    xray
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1067
    Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:29 am
    Location: AZ


  • John63 wrote:
    scutterhawk wrote:
    John63 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:I'd say just by having Russell as our QB, an elite level QB that has never missed a snap in his entire career AUTOMATICALLY puts the Hawks offense at least in the top 15.

    I get it, no Doug and many question marks at the TE and WR position might not instill a lot of confidence if you're putting a list like this together. But anything lower than 12-15 with our nasty run game, Carson and Russell is laughable.


    I believe this doe snto onclude the QB it is basically the supporting cast around the QB


    Then by omitting pertinent data, it's an incomplete evaluation, and as Chris stated, it belongs in the circular file under blather.


    No, because that point is the talent surrounding the QB, so if it is about that why would you include the QB? You would not. Now I understand some of you need to find any way you can to down play anything that does not go with what ever narrative you want. However, the reality is we do not have the same talent around our QB that other top QBs have.


    We will be pleasantly surprised with the WR group this season. :0190l:
    xray
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1067
    Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:29 am
    Location: AZ


  • xray wrote:
    John63 wrote:
    scutterhawk wrote:
    John63 wrote:
    I believe this doe snto onclude the QB it is basically the supporting cast around the QB


    Then by omitting pertinent data, it's an incomplete evaluation, and as Chris stated, it belongs in the circular file under blather.


    No, because that point is the talent surrounding the QB, so if it is about that why would you include the QB? You would not. Now I understand some of you need to find any way you can to down play anything that does not go with what ever narrative you want. However, the reality is we do not have the same talent around our QB that other top QBs have.


    We will be pleasantly surprised with the WR group this season. :0190l:


    While i dont think we will reach volume numbers, I agree that we will be surprised by the lethal efficiency of this group.

    A starting 3 of Metcalf, Brown and Lockett will be fun.
    McGruff
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 5254
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:14 am
    Location: Elma, WA


  • McGruff wrote:
    xray wrote:
    John63 wrote:
    scutterhawk wrote:
    Then by omitting pertinent data, it's an incomplete evaluation, and as Chris stated, it belongs in the circular file under blather.


    No, because that point is the talent surrounding the QB, so if it is about that why would you include the QB? You would not. Now I understand some of you need to find any way you can to down play anything that does not go with what ever narrative you want. However, the reality is we do not have the same talent around our QB that other top QBs have.


    We will be pleasantly surprised with the WR group this season. :0190l:


    While i dont think we will reach volume numbers, I agree that we will be surprised by the lethal efficiency of this group.

    A starting 3 of Metcalf, Brown and Lockett will be fun.


    YEP
    xray
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1067
    Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:29 am
    Location: AZ


  • John63 wrote:
    scutterhawk wrote:
    John63 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:I'd say just by having Russell as our QB, an elite level QB that has never missed a snap in his entire career AUTOMATICALLY puts the Hawks offense at least in the top 15.

    I get it, no Doug and many question marks at the TE and WR position might not instill a lot of confidence if you're putting a list like this together. But anything lower than 12-15 with our nasty run game, Carson and Russell is laughable.


    I believe this doe snto onclude the QB it is basically the supporting cast around the QB


    Then by omitting pertinent data, it's an incomplete evaluation, and as Chris stated, it belongs in the circular file under blather.


    No, because that point is the talent surrounding the QB, so if it is about that why would you include the QB? You would not. Now I understand some of you need to find any way you can to down play anything that does not go with what ever narrative you want. However, the reality is we do not have the same talent around our QB that other top QBs have.

    Oh, I SEE, if you have a TOP OF THE LINE set of golf clubs at yer disposal, it doesn't matter who's swingin' em, cuz you're still gunna have a great game.
    OR, the reason I include the difference maker (The Quarterback), is because he is the catalyst, he's the one that's making everyone around him better.
    That's the reason that Wilson + DK + a few others are working out together BEFORE Training Camp.
    That's not my "Narritive", that's just the facts.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6903
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:48 pm


  • scutterhawk wrote:
    John63 wrote:
    scutterhawk wrote:
    John63 wrote:
    I believe this doe snto onclude the QB it is basically the supporting cast around the QB


    Then by omitting pertinent data, it's an incomplete evaluation, and as Chris stated, it belongs in the circular file under blather.


    No, because that point is the talent surrounding the QB, so if it is about that why would you include the QB? You would not. Now I understand some of you need to find any way you can to down play anything that does not go with what ever narrative you want. However, the reality is we do not have the same talent around our QB that other top QBs have.

    Oh, I SEE, if you have a TOP OF THE LINE set of golf clubs at yer disposal, it doesn't matter who's swingin' em, cuz you're still gunna have a great game.
    OR, the reason I include the difference maker (The Quarterback), is because he is the catalyst, he's the one that's making everyone around him better.
    That's the reason that Wilson + DK + a few others are working out together BEFORE Training Camp.
    That's not my "Narritive", that's just the facts.


    No you have a top of the line set of clubs and each club bring something to the table, regardless who is swinging them. What they can bring can be better or worse based on who swings them, but there is a base line regardless. That is the point, this is about the talent around the Qb and what they bring to the table, not what they bring with a great QB or bad QB they themselves bring. As to your DK example, in a way you are right, yes DK with Wilson will probably bring more than the base line of a WR of his skills, and attributes. However, that is not the point of the article, it is what they bring regardless of who is throwing the ball to them.
    John63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1172
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:56 pm


  • John63 wrote:
    scutterhawk wrote:
    John63 wrote:
    scutterhawk wrote:
    Then by omitting pertinent data, it's an incomplete evaluation, and as Chris stated, it belongs in the circular file under blather.


    No, because that point is the talent surrounding the QB, so if it is about that why would you include the QB? You would not. Now I understand some of you need to find any way you can to down play anything that does not go with what ever narrative you want. However, the reality is we do not have the same talent around our QB that other top QBs have.

    Oh, I SEE, if you have a TOP OF THE LINE set of golf clubs at yer disposal, it doesn't matter who's swingin' em, cuz you're still gunna have a great game.
    OR, the reason I include the difference maker (The Quarterback), is because he is the catalyst, he's the one that's making everyone around him better.
    That's the reason that Wilson + DK + a few others are working out together BEFORE Training Camp.
    That's not my "Narritive", that's just the facts.


    No you have a top of the line set of clubs and each club bring something to the table, regardless who is swinging them. What they can bring can be better or worse based on who swings them, but there is a base line regardless. That is the point, this is about the talent around the Qb and what they bring to the table, not what they bring with a great QB or bad QB they themselves bring. As to your DK example, in a way you are right, yes DK with Wilson will probably bring more than the base line of a WR of his skills, and attributes. However, that is not the point of the article, it is what they bring regardless of who is throwing the ball to them.

    The "Article" dismisses the catalyst of the Seahawks Offense, putting them a 29th of 32 teams = bullshit.
    The Offense isn't created in a vacuum, if the Quarterback buys time (as Wilson has done with regularity), that CHANGES the formula, and that has to be considered when evaluating the "Offensive Supporting Cast".
    Do they fit the SEAHAWKS Offensive scheme, are the on the same wave with the Quarterback, I assure you that Schotts takes all this into account when game planning.
    Other examples, Sidney Rice was a GREAT "Fit", Marshawn Lynch was GREAT "Fit", Doug Baldwin worked his ass off and became a GREAT "Fit"
    NOT including the Quarterback when formulating the "Offensive Supporting Cast" is simplistic, and leaves you with incomplete data.
    Here's another example...Some say that Russ hangs onto the ball too long, that wouldn't be on the O-Line players ("Supporting Cast"), that's on Wilson....It's just another part of the formula that has to be accounted for when evaluating players on the Offensive Line.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6903
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:48 pm


  • scutterhawk wrote:
    John63 wrote:
    scutterhawk wrote:
    John63 wrote:
    No, because that point is the talent surrounding the QB, so if it is about that why would you include the QB? You would not. Now I understand some of you need to find any way you can to down play anything that does not go with what ever narrative you want. However, the reality is we do not have the same talent around our QB that other top QBs have.

    Oh, I SEE, if you have a TOP OF THE LINE set of golf clubs at yer disposal, it doesn't matter who's swingin' em, cuz you're still gunna have a great game.
    OR, the reason I include the difference maker (The Quarterback), is because he is the catalyst, he's the one that's making everyone around him better.
    That's the reason that Wilson + DK + a few others are working out together BEFORE Training Camp.
    That's not my "Narritive", that's just the facts.


    No you have a top of the line set of clubs and each club bring something to the table, regardless who is swinging them. What they can bring can be better or worse based on who swings them, but there is a base line regardless. That is the point, this is about the talent around the Qb and what they bring to the table, not what they bring with a great QB or bad QB they themselves bring. As to your DK example, in a way you are right, yes DK with Wilson will probably bring more than the base line of a WR of his skills, and attributes. However, that is not the point of the article, it is what they bring regardless of who is throwing the ball to them.

    The "Article" dismisses the catalyst of the Seahawks Offense, putting them a 29th of 32 teams = bullshit.
    The Offense isn't created in a vacuum, if the Quarterback buys time (as Wilson has done with regularity), that CHANGES the formula, and that has to be considered when evaluating the "Offensive Supporting Cast".
    Do they fit the SEAHAWKS Offensive scheme, are the on the same wave with the Quarterback, I assure you that Schotts takes all this into account when game planning.
    Other examples, Sidney Rice was a GREAT "Fit", Marshawn Lynch was GREAT "Fit", Doug Baldwin worked his ass off and became a GREAT "Fit"
    NOT including the Quarterback when formulating the "Offensive Supporting Cast" is simplistic, and leaves you with incomplete data.
    Here's another example...Some say that Russ hangs onto the ball too long, that wouldn't be on the O-Line players ("Supporting Cast"), that's on Wilson....It's just another part of the formula that has to be accounted for when evaluating players on the Offensive Line.


    At this point you are arguing to argue, the fact of the matter they are looking at specific players at specific positions and what they bring to the table, regardless who is around them. IF we go by your "opinion" than we can't judge any player at all, only the unit as a whole, and we can't do that because the defense and ST can impact the offense, so we can judge them we can only judge the team, but we can't judge that because there is coaches, and then even if we add them we then need to include playing conditions, stadiums, fans, time of the game etc etc. So basically no one can be judges how good or bad they are compared to others because well there is always some other thing that can influence things etc etc. So well I guess every player in every sport are equal in every way, So that means There can't be a ALL pro team, or a GOAT. Wow so that means that Clipboard Jesus is as good as Manning and so on and so on. OH wait that means everyone should be in the HOF or no one as we can't judge who is better because of all the variables. I mean Ryan Leaf might have been as good as Brady if he went to NE. That also means you can't say it is anyone s fault as well there are variables, Yes he dropped the winning TD but if the ball was not thrown as hard, or thrown higher or thrown sooner or thrown later etc etc etc. Get how ridiculous this is yet or should I go on. Yes all the position impact each other, but you can still look at each position and player and determine who is better than others, or are you going to tell me Rice was ever as good a Julio Jones?
    John63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1172
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:56 pm


  • Tis yourself that is arguing a moot point, incomplete data, an undeveloped picture.
    Context matters--Evaluating a player or players without taking into account of how he/they will fit into a particular system..A "System" which includes how he/they will function with the other "Supporting Cast" team members.
    Here's just one more pertinent fact to this argument...As fantastic a LT as Walter Jones was, he was even BETTER when he had Steve Hutchinson at his side, The LEFT side was better because they fed off of -> EACH OTHER<-("Supporting Cast"),and that's why you have to include EVERYONE on Offense (including the Quarterback) when evaluating each and every individual.
    Same with Defense, the LOB wasn't JUST ONE OUTSTANDING PLAYER.
    Last time I checked, Football is a Team sport.
    More to ponder....Why is it that we almost always have to wait a year or two to assess that a Rookie is worth where he got Drafted?, Answer, because sometimes they need the time to MELD with other team mates ("Supporting Cast")
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6903
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:48 pm


  • scutterhawk wrote:Tis yourself that is arguing a moot point, incomplete data, an undeveloped picture.
    Context matters--Evaluating a player or players without taking into account of how he/they will fit into a particular system..A "System" which includes how he/they will function with the other "Supporting Cast" team members.
    Here's just one more pertinent fact to this argument...As fantastic a LT as Walter Jones was, he was even BETTER when he had Steve Hutchinson at his side, The LEFT side was better because they fed off of -> EACH OTHER<-("Supporting Cast"),and that's why you have to include EVERYONE on Offense (including the Quarterback) when evaluating each and every individual.
    Same with Defense, the LOB wasn't JUST ONE OUTSTANDING PLAYER.
    Last time I checked, Football is a Team sport.
    More to ponder....Why is it that we almost always have to wait a year or two to assess that a Rookie is worth where he got Drafted?, Answer, because sometimes they need the time to MELD with other team mates ("Supporting Cast")


    And lets not forget that how and where these players are assessed and utilized ; is in this case the offensive coaching staff . They make the final decisions right or wrong . IMO
    xray
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1067
    Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:29 am
    Location: AZ


  • scutterhawk wrote:Tis yourself that is arguing a moot point, incomplete data, an undeveloped picture.
    Context matters--Evaluating a player or players without taking into account of how he/they will fit into a particular system..A "System" which includes how he/they will function with the other "Supporting Cast" team members.
    Here's just one more pertinent fact to this argument...As fantastic a LT as Walter Jones was, he was even BETTER when he had Steve Hutchinson at his side, The LEFT side was better because they fed off of -> EACH OTHER<-("Supporting Cast"),and that's why you have to include EVERYONE on Offense (including the Quarterback) when evaluating each and every individual.
    Same with Defense, the LOB wasn't JUST ONE OUTSTANDING PLAYER.
    Last time I checked, Football is a Team sport.
    More to ponder....Why is it that we almost always have to wait a year or two to assess that a Rookie is worth where he got Drafted?, Answer, because sometimes they need the time to MELD with other team mates ("Supporting Cast")


    LOL when in doubt just through it at someone else classic defense when you know your wrong. Oh wait How can you say Walter Jones was fantastic under your process you can't, because you knot know if it was the others making him look good, or the system, or the QB etc. You just destroyed your own argument. Thanks for mqakign my point
    John63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1172
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:56 pm


  • John63 wrote:
    scutterhawk wrote:Tis yourself that is arguing a moot point, incomplete data, an undeveloped picture.
    Context matters--Evaluating a player or players without taking into account of how he/they will fit into a particular system..A "System" which includes how he/they will function with the other "Supporting Cast" team members.
    Here's just one more pertinent fact to this argument...As fantastic a LT as Walter Jones was, he was even BETTER when he had Steve Hutchinson at his side, The LEFT side was better because they fed off of -> EACH OTHER<-("Supporting Cast"),and that's why you have to include EVERYONE on Offense (including the Quarterback) when evaluating each and every individual.
    Same with Defense, the LOB wasn't JUST ONE OUTSTANDING PLAYER.
    Last time I checked, Football is a Team sport.
    More to ponder....Why is it that we almost always have to wait a year or two to assess that a Rookie is worth where he got Drafted?, Answer, because sometimes they need the time to MELD with other team mates ("Supporting Cast")


    LOL when in doubt just through it at someone else classic defense when you know your wrong. Oh wait How can you say Walter Jones was fantastic under your process you can't, because you knot know if it was the others making him look good, or the system, or the QB etc. You just destroyed your own argument. Thanks for mqakign my point


    Now you're just embarrassing yourself.
    You're insistence on basing your opinion, hanging with the incomplete data from that article, shows that you are the one that is in the wrong.
    ONE MORE TIME, What Made The LOB outstanding, was how Thomas, Chancellor, & Sherman played >T-O-G-E-T-H-E-R<, ("SUPPORTING CAST") and when all is said and done, they will be remembered as a group, ("SUPPORTING CAST") that graded out BETTER than they did all by themselves., OH AND, Sherman playing for 49rs, isn't as stand out good as he was playing along side his LOB Brothers.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6903
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:48 pm


  • scutterhawk wrote:
    John63 wrote:
    scutterhawk wrote:Tis yourself that is arguing a moot point, incomplete data, an undeveloped picture.
    Context matters--Evaluating a player or players without taking into account of how he/they will fit into a particular system..A "System" which includes how he/they will function with the other "Supporting Cast" team members.
    Here's just one more pertinent fact to this argument...As fantastic a LT as Walter Jones was, he was even BETTER when he had Steve Hutchinson at his side, The LEFT side was better because they fed off of -> EACH OTHER<-("Supporting Cast"),and that's why you have to include EVERYONE on Offense (including the Quarterback) when evaluating each and every individual.
    Same with Defense, the LOB wasn't JUST ONE OUTSTANDING PLAYER.
    Last time I checked, Football is a Team sport.
    More to ponder....Why is it that we almost always have to wait a year or two to assess that a Rookie is worth where he got Drafted?, Answer, because sometimes they need the time to MELD with other team mates ("Supporting Cast")


    LOL when in doubt just through it at someone else classic defense when you know your wrong. Oh wait How can you say Walter Jones was fantastic under your process you can't, because you knot know if it was the others making him look good, or the system, or the QB etc. You just destroyed your own argument. Thanks for mqakign my point


    Now you're just embarrassing yourself.
    You're insistence on basing your opinion, hanging with the incomplete data from that article, shows that you are the one that is in the wrong.
    ONE MORE TIME, What Made The LOB outstanding, was how Thomas, Chancellor, & Sherman played >T-O-G-E-T-H-E-R<, ("SUPPORTING CAST") and when all is said and done, they will be remembered as a group, ("SUPPORTING CAST") that graded out BETTER than they did all by themselves., OH AND, Sherman playing for 49rs, isn't as stand out good as he was playing along side his LOB Brothers.


    Says the man who thinks no one can be evaluated for what they bring to the table as an individual. I mean how do we know who to draft? Talk about embarrasing, you just did that to yourself. Oh and your Sherman thing hmm you don't think age or injuries might also at part huh. The reality is you can judge, grade or whatever you want to call it any player, based on what they bring to the table. Again that baseline can go up or down based o n who is around them, the system they are in etc. However that base line remains. Lol Sherman not as good with SF being you example is laughable given you left out age, I hurry etc. The fact you think no one can be graded on what THEY bring to the table is the no accountability arguement which has been proven to be wrong. You can grade say a wt on his route running, his hands, his strength, his space making, all separate from others on the team and you know it, you just want to argue and I guess don't find looking silly doing it.
    John63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1172
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:56 pm


  • I thoughtt the article demonstrated how outcomes can vary by selecting what factors are included and what factors are excluded. And, by manipulating the weighing of chosen factors.

    Different authors are free to manipulate as they see fit and produce their own unique rankings (outcomes).

    If such exercises garner the clicks their sponsors demand ....... mission accomplished.
    Jville
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 8994
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:49 pm


  • Jville wrote:I thoughtt the article demonstrated how outcomes can vary by selecting what factors are included and what factors are excluded. And, by manipulating the weighing of chosen factors.

    Different authors are free to manipulate as they see fit and produce their own unique rankings (outcomes).

    If such exercises garner the clicks their sponsors demand ....... mission accomplished.


    Could be or it could show how on paper the talent around some teams and QBs are not as good as others. Mind you on paper, Game time might be different. So while on paper it appears we have a lack of legitimate weapons once game time comes we might see we are fine, or we are worse. No matter how you look at it there is no denying ATL has a better arsenal of offensive weapons outside of QB then we do or for that matter most teams. All that said it is a data point that may or may not be accurate but till the season starts we do not know. That said our ranking did not surprise me and if you are being honest with yourself should not surprise anyone. Other than Lockette we have no proven 50+ catch WR. Meanwhile, a lot of teams have multiple WR of that level.

    The fun part will be if they do what I think they can do, and are allowed to do, there will be a lot of experts who are wrong.
    John63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1172
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:56 pm


ESPN "writer" ranks our Offense #29
Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:16 am

Re: ESPN "writer" ranks our Offense #29
Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:33 am
  • That's probably the floor, with assumptions that DK busts and we struggle to replace Baldwin. So in that respect it's realistic. However, we haven't even seen pre-season yet, so we don't know who will be cut and who we'll pick up as veteran leadership/roleplayer. We have resources, and Schneider is NEVER done building.
    KiwiHawk
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 2422
    Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 4:22 pm
    Location: Auckland, New Zealand


Re: ESPN "writer" ranks our Offense #29
Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:47 am
  • If Russ is healthy, we're middle of the pack at least, and likely top 10. :229031_shrug:
    sutz
    USMC 1970-77
     
    Posts: 16839
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:41 am
    Location: Kent, WA


Re: ESPN "writer" ranks our Offense #29
Mon Jul 15, 2019 5:17 am

Re: ESPN "writer" ranks our Offense #29
Mon Jul 15, 2019 6:34 am
  • Billboard material.

    I hope it pisses the whole squad off.

    I love that young “chip on shoulder” attitude.
    pmedic920
    * .NET Official Stache *
     
    Posts: 18307
    Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 9:37 am
    Location: On the lake, Livingston Texas


Next


It is currently Thu Oct 17, 2019 8:20 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online